Captions, and Titles, and Pictures, Oh My!

Mitchell proposes a few interesting perspectives in his text Picture Theory on the significance of written text and illustration, both isolated and paired together. His analysis inspired other questions on this relationship, and more specifically, if words and illustrations could operate just as successfully alone as they do when paired together (do they have a sort of reliance on each other in certain texts, that would cause the work to go flat if it did not include one of these to rather “crucial” features?). He proposes that “the very notion of a theory of a theory of pictures suggests an attempt to master the field of visual representation with a verbal discourse,” which reflects his acknowledgement that there is a dynamic of verbal discourse and imagery, but I believe the images present that anyhow; verbal discourse, explicitly put, is enacted just to ensure that the author’s interpretations are not misread (Mitchell 9).

As clear as images may seem, and as clear as the message the author is trying to convey may seem, images tend to be less concrete in function than the words that seem to incite their solidarity and warrant a more definite purpose, a clear rendition of the author’s purpose, when combined. However, Mitchell also expresses that there is a sort of “resistance” to this, that artists would rather not have linguistic features attached to visual art (15). A more valid reason for this could be that artwork should speak for itself and constant captioning and verbal explanation removes the aspect of evoking an organic response from the audience, as well as the fact that art can express the emotions that people cannot fully describe with words, where verbal discourse simply does not fit.

The overly labeled and analytical approach could ruin the effect the author is hoping the piece radiates when viewed. Most artwork is meant to be interpreted freely, and usually things such as articles, reviews, and interviews with the author reveal motives, but interpretations are generally not isolated to those explanations. Photo-essays defy this concept of pairing, as Mitchell also notes that the “pictorial medium” seems to be the “most antithetical to language, yet is so routinely sutured to verbal representations” being that they are not meant to have captioning or written explanations stamped on them, but rather tell a story with support of other images as context (211).

Scott Mccloud takes the approach that as a consensus, people tend to see, not all, but a significant amount of things the same way, and so that is what artists play off of when trying to appeal to a wide range of people. In his work Understanding Comics, Mccloud uses imagery paired with verbal discourse to investigate and dismantle complexities of art and interpretation. Most notably, he mentions that phenomenon of people in car accidents saying that cars have them individually, rather than stating their car has been hit, however when a person claims that they themselves have been hit, it is commonly assumed that they mean their car has been hit, which I believe he is employing to attest to the fact that certain things are said amongst people that, thought are technically incorrect, understood by a majority (Mccloud 38). He explains, and expresses various stylistic approaches, that show, even with variation, it is understood that the characters are people that walk and talk because the exhibit what the audience understands to be human behavior, and the verbal discourse in these comics are short because the characters are acting in reflections of the real world, and less abstractly than, perhaps, a painting (42-43).

Nick Sousanis, author of Unflattening, took an approach that I believe combines the abstract and the real world. With the claim that “imagination pervades our existence”, it is clear to see that Sousanis views most things and then the physical embodiments of ideas to be products of the imagination, a valid and true notion (Sousanis 91). He explains his creation of a comic book superhero (Lockerman) and the inspiration behind it, information that readers would not necessarily gather from the text itself, as mentioned earlier in discussing Mitchell (92). With the intent of this comic book being an explanation of his creative process, taking an outside look from it’s storyline content, and analyzing its structure, it can be concluded that this is a text that requires verbal discourse. Mccloud’s work may not have needed it, as the actions of the characters suggests enough, though his purpose was invested in analyzing the visual cues comics present (so that us why verbal discourse was present), but Sousanis’ evaluations are specific to himself and have less of a “universal” understanding to them. Only he can explain his personal thoughts and attribute meaning.

In reviewing these three texts in relation to each other, I tried to pick apart verbal discourse, imagery, and necessity. I do feel that in terms of artwork such as murals, paintings, and other abstract genres of art, verbal discourse devalues the art if it is to be displayed on the artwork as in comic books, but authors usually tend to put out explanations (if not, then I suppose the work is up for interpretation, which seems to follow the general intent of this sort of art). Ultimately, verbal discourse is required, as confirmed by all authors mentioned, not for complete explanation, as images do offer some, but for further explanation, and the utilization of verbal discourse with imagery is not required, but rather left to the discretion of the creator and how he or she believes the work will be received by the audience (with confusion or complete understanding; probably uncommon, but he or she could also not care at all as to whether or not the work was exactly “clear” to the audience). Verbal discourse functions as an aid to imagery, but on its own, imagery seems to provide an implicit verbal discourse within the thoughts of the audience as they review the text they are presented.